Find Similar Notes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: it uses existing chunk embeddings from the source note, makes no live API call, and is fast and free. It also notes the exclusion of the source note. No contradictions with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two focused sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds behavioral context and a prerequisite. No redundant or extraneous information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is mostly complete given the tool's simplicity and available annotations. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., list of note paths or scores). With no output schema, a brief mention of the return structure would enhance completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already covers both parameters with full descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds marginal value by explaining that 'K' corresponds to the limit and that the source note is excluded, but these are largely implicit in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: given a note path, return semantically similar notes from the index. It specifies the resource (notes) and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_semantic by highlighting the use of existing embeddings without live API calls.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear prerequisite (run index_vault first) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it directly to alternatives. The context implies use cases but lacks explicit exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.